Don’t worry, you’re not ignorant, and it’s not yours that needs pardoning anyway.
Is there an “appeal” process with private insurance?
Will it be tougher to “appeal” a decision by a government flunky?
I really have no idea. Is it wrong to assume that getting changes pushed through in the government system may be tad tougher?
On the whole, I think that people are genuinely worried that the government run system be run ( or make things in other health plans) worse and/or more difficult.
They know the problems with the current plans & system. They don’t know what the unintended consequences (or what might be hidden in the fine print) of the proposed system. They would rather stick with the devil they know then gamble on one they don’t, it seems to me.
And how would a public option make things worse than they are now? Here is one example I know of: a patient was prescibed Welbutrin (before it was generic) to help quit smoking. Her insurance company denied the claim. The doctor then re-diagnosed her as depressed and it was approved. So there already are burocrats (sp) that are making decisions on care. It is not “between the doctor and patient” as many say.
I get that you’re not serious but who are the death panel idiots? Like, what is this a parody OF?
The problem is that the right-wing are MUCH better at coming up with simple propaganda slogans than the left-wing or the moderates. “Pro-Life” was brilliant, and it took the abortion-supporters years and years to come up with “Pro-choice” as the opposite. “America: Love it or Leave it” was another. “Cut-and-run” as the only alternative to extending the Iraq War. And so on.
The “death panels” is another such brilliant bit, over-simplifying a complex issue in a way that makes non-thinking people flock to their side. Yes, for sure, a medical board under government-health care will have to make life/death decisions. The thing is that such decisions are made TODAY, by insurance companies and hospital financial controllers. The difference is that a government-sponsored decision-making board will base decisions on societal standards, clearly formulated by the medical profession, patient-advocates, and government… while currently, the “death panels” make their decision solely based on bottom line financial results.
But, of course, the expression “death panel” hides the complex issues under an easy-to-remember slogan that doesn’t require thought or insight. Sigh.
See post 16. 
I guess if they’d used “Death Committee”, Noah Gordon could sue.
Totally agree with this - that’s exactly what it is - a public option. I’ve actually read the entire bill - all 1,018 pages of it – for work. In a previous life, I implemented government healthcare programs. For what it’s worth, portions of the bill are naive. Other portions of it will be hard if not impossible to implement in our current climate. But the public option portion of the bill focuses primarily on ensuring that the people who need it most (the uninsured or underinsured) can afford standard medical care. The bill is not about prohibiting anyone from access to treatment. Its primary goals are further development of a better primary care system (in the hopes people won’t need as much specialized care), minimizing the cost of specialized care by incenting a preference for more standard procedures before less-proven, more exotic ones.
And as to the idea of euthanizing seniors – the idea that the bill or even the spirit of the bill remotely promotes such an idea is even stupider than the idea of death panels. The end-of-life care focuses on the creation of end-of-life directives like medical powers of attorney and continued dialogue with caregivers and providers, to make sure they get the treatment they want when they are physically unable to request it themselves.
Both sides need to compormise to make the bill workable. But that’s the point of the bill, right? To have a framework from which to begin a discussion. It’s very rare that the bill goes through Congress unchanged. It’s like the first draft of any copy - you do it to create something for people to edit and reconstruct if necessary. If both sides would shut the fuck up and stop arguing about what’s out there - because it would never make it through unchanged anyway - and propose reasonable changes to it, the healthcare system in this country would be going in a much better direction.
I think both sides can agree that the healthcare system as it is today is not working or is working only for some and cannot continue the way it is.
Well crafted, sir. ::golf clap::
“Bush lied, people died.” Simple. Catchy. Propaganda. See, y’all aren’t as bad at it as you think.
Oh, my God! That’s one of the finest, most clever post responses I’ve ever seen!
And I’ve seen aplenty…
@ Chefguy
Thanks! 
It’s a parody of a noxious notion from the far right wing, that Obama wants old people to be euthanized.
So we are going to murder some folks? Obviously not everyone, just some chosen idiots. How to decide who and who not? Gonna need a commitee for sure.
Wait, isnt that also a “panel”? One that decides who dies and who doesnt?
Oh crap, they were right!
I actually like the term “death panel” a lot. I always picture a group of super villains sitting at a long table, contemplating the fate of the hapless fool before them. And I like picturing that.
Absolutely. It’s rather scary, once you connect all the dots, such as how Obama’s announcement of his health care plan triggered that swarm of earthquakes off the Baja California coast last month. And that terrible tragedy over the Hudson River last week – clearly, those socialist Italian tourists knew too much, and the government had them erased.
Uh-oh, I sense they’re on to me as well. I’d better erase this post…hope that computer chip implanted in my brain by the NSA doesn’t cause me to hit the wrong button…
I actually picture them finishing my father’s basement.
Yes, but the rhyme scheme is too simple, while the syntax is too complex (that comma should be a semicolon). Also, while “Bush lied” has a wonderful specificity, “people died” is just too vague to stoke any outrage. But you are right that it is an attempt to match the low-info rhetoric used by their counterparts on the other side.
Well, that’s an accurate statement. Is it propaganda if it’s the simple truth?
G, could you please send the names (and social security numbers and addresses, if you have them) of all those who reported the OP as serious or as trolling, because I have a Christmas card list I’m trying to fill out, and I think these folks could use some holiday cheer when that season rolls around. Thanks so much–and if you considered it a serious proposal yourself, even for a second, please do feel free to put your own contact info on it. Kthxby and early merry xmas,
Oh, and
Regards,
PRR
Bloody Grammar Nazi. Now those are the people who should be lined up and shot. 
See, the reason you’re near-universally regarded as a dick is that you don’t know when to shrug things off. If your weak sneering sarcasm gets challenged, your inevitable response is to pile on more weak sneering sarcasm. Overtelling a joke can’t make it funny.